Texas, Texas, Yee-haw

Before noon today I'll be kissing Texas goodbye. G.p would like to assure you that there'll be new, worthy DC issues in these pages soon enough, and that we'd never abandon TX politics, curious bag that it is--but in reality, I think we're looking at a series of lamentations spreading far and wide. No breakfast tacos, no land, rude Yanks, stuffy bars, no breakfast tacos. But DC has its own thing going, and I'll try to figure out what that is. Y'all wish me luck.

Now give us a couple of days to adjust, and we'll be back in no time.posted by kriston at 8:34 AM........

Detente, Babble, and Prate

Dave McNeely from the Statesmanasks the right question about the Republican shame game but maybe with the wrong reasoning. TX Republicans are highlighting the social spending they could be doing if the TX Democrats would just pretty-please come to work:

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst on Wednesday echoed claims of Republican senators and Perry on Tuesday that Democrats must return because the Legislature needs to sign off on vital appropriations and government reorganization. A few months earlier, it was Democrats calling for more spending on social services.

[...]

As 14 TV cameras rolled tape, naturally came the next question: Are those issues such a priority that Perry should pull down congressional redistricting?

It's probably irrelevant whether or not any of these points would be put on the table in the second session if redistricting passed; the point is that these issues will never surface until redistricting is passed. (A second point may be that, if the Dems returned, the map issue could be finalized with a quickness--like the "same-day service" seen with the House. Nevermind that that speed comes from the fact that Lt. Gov. Dewhurst bent the Texas legislative rules for the sake of the issue, which hardly implies House consensus.)

I hope the Republicans beat this drum until they're blue in the face, because I don't think anyone's going to buy it. Guilt doesn't solve a detente. If Lt. Gov. Dewhurst starts offering true concessions, the Democrats stand to lose the PR edge with their firm stance. But it seems that the Republicans are prattling in the face of the challenge.

Babble and prate, bubble and scrape, Hubble and tape, trouble and crate... lots of good sounds.posted by kriston at 8:15 AM........

Wednesday, July 30, 2003

NO MA'AM

I'm reading this just as it's coming off the NYT's print, and ladies, you'd better be seated:

"We had to make Big look like a high school sweetheart," Ms. Parker said, referring to Mr. Big, the character played by Chris Noth who has been a looming romantic presence in Carrie's life throughout the series, which began in 1998.

[...]

She was speaking by telephone from location shooting for Sex and the City in Manhattan. The show's cast is winding up the 11th and 12th episodes in what is to be a 20-episode final season. Ms. Parker, who is also an executive producer on the series, said she had riffled through the names of various movie stars, trying to cast the part. None really seemed to measure up to the outsize expectations for a character who would, as Ms. Parker put it, "reveal to Carrie that there's a whole other life out there."

Then one morning in April, in the shower ("As a new mother it's the only place it ever really gets quiet in my head," she said), an idea flashed: Mikhail Baryshnikov. European. An international artist of enormous reputation. But would he even consider an offer to play a love interest on a television comedy?

Big, Aiden, and Berger weren't bad enough? I'm poor, I can't make furniture from trees, and, well, Berger kind of screwed himself but his banter charmed my socks off. I'm barely keeping up with Steve over here, and I think he passed me up in the season I missed. And now they're throwing dancing Europeans into the mix? Game over, man. I'm watching Married With Children.

Sex and the City: It's an institute you can't disparage.posted by kriston at 1:01 AM........

Tuesday, July 29, 2003

Democrats: Beyond Thunderdome

I heard this news early this morning while I was in court. TX Democrats' timing worked out quite well, actually - the judge was listening to some specific point about their departure (which might have had some legal impact, I'm speculating?) when he motioned for me to come to the bench. Once the aide had given him the scoop (which I tried to hear, of course, but couldn't understand) he started celebrating. Sweet! A Democratic judge!

I started to feel bad about this instinct; I was already feeling absurdly guilty for being the whitest person ever in the room, and wearing a tie no less--reinforcing all kinds of nasty stereotypes, I'm sure. Regardless, I didn't bring it up but he could tell I was interested (I guess) and gave me the update. Then he lectured me on civic responsibility, and then he kind of let me off the hook. In summary: Sweet! A Democratic judge!

So would being a terrorist make you guilty of insider trading?

That's what I thought when I read about the Pentagon's weirdest development yet: a futures market based on terrorism. File this under, "Whaaaaaa'?" in the words of Jon Stewart, for sure, but do give the Department of Defense a chance:

"Research indicates that markets are extremely efficient, effective and timely aggregators of dispersed and even hidden information," the Defense Department said in a statement. "Futures markets have proven themselves to be good at predicting such things as elections results; they are often better than expert opinions."

Of course, research also shows that decent people find wagers placed on human lives to be morally repugnant. But then research also shows that decent people find the Department of Defense to be morally repugnant as well, so maybe it won't be a surprise to anyone.

In all seriousness, I think that this kind of approach can be effective. Think: Where does Obi-wan Kenobi go when he needs help with some pesky Imperials? To the Mos Eisley cantina, a "hive of scum and villainy." I perfer for intelligence to come from all angles, and since these "futures markets" exist already, why not just have the CIA keep tabs on them? And those other terror-casinos, the ones we might learn from, are in places where people might be willing to place a bet on an attack in America. That doesn't go over real well at your local sports bar here. If this is the culmination of several months worth of effort on behalf of the Pentagon, I'm a little bit disappointed.

But my first question: Why is it that the Pentagon is setting this up instead of the CIA?

They'll probably each bet that the other is the imminent target.posted by kriston at 10:31 AM........